This is no surprise, the judge is essentially constrained to rule this way, given the evidence.
Some people are arguing about amazon, but again, that is irrelevant legally.
As I wrote 43 days ago here:
"A finding about Amazon will be completely irrelevant to Apple's conduct in this case. The question is whether Apple committed horizontal price fixing. Amazon's possibly illegal conduct is going to be completely irrelevant in that, as horizontal price fixing is still per-se illegal. They could prove Amazon hurt the market a lot. They could prove whatever they like. As long as the DOJ proves they committed horizontal price fixing, it's game over. Now, the supreme court may, in the end, decide horizontal price fixing should be analyzed under the rule of reason instead of being a per-se violation, but that's completely irrelevant to the current state of the law, and in fact, Apple's behavior. SCOTUS is not going to change the doctrine because they think Apple did the right thing here, they will change doctrine because they think the doctrine was wrong in general. However, that doctrine is the current state of the law, and what this case, and the appeal, will be analyzed under."
This is exactly what happened.
From the decision:
"In sum, the Plaintiffs have shown not just by a
preponderance of the evidence, see Herman & MacLean v.
Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390 (1983), but through compelling
direct and circumstantial evidence that Apple participated
in and facilitated a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. As
a result, they have proven a per se violation of the Sherman
Act."
I think, sadly, there is a good chance the supreme court will change horizontal price fixing to be under the rule of reason, and then we will finally all be screwed (The rule of reason analysis is why you see so much vertical price fixing these days, since it is no longer a per-se violation)
Note that the judge, being prescient, also wrote part of the decision to explain why she believes Apple would also be guilty under the rule of reason (IE if it was not a per-se violation). This portion of the decision takes into account Amazon's conduct.
This was done so that if the supreme court declares horizontal price fixing to be subject to the rule of reason, they won't need a new trial.
Horizontal price fixing is when competitors in a market (like, say, the major book publishers) cooperate to control prices in that market.
Vertical price fixing is an entity at one level of the chain of production controlling prices at another level (typically, its a manufacturer dictating retail prices.)
Some people are arguing about amazon, but again, that is irrelevant legally.
As I wrote 43 days ago here:
"A finding about Amazon will be completely irrelevant to Apple's conduct in this case. The question is whether Apple committed horizontal price fixing. Amazon's possibly illegal conduct is going to be completely irrelevant in that, as horizontal price fixing is still per-se illegal. They could prove Amazon hurt the market a lot. They could prove whatever they like. As long as the DOJ proves they committed horizontal price fixing, it's game over. Now, the supreme court may, in the end, decide horizontal price fixing should be analyzed under the rule of reason instead of being a per-se violation, but that's completely irrelevant to the current state of the law, and in fact, Apple's behavior. SCOTUS is not going to change the doctrine because they think Apple did the right thing here, they will change doctrine because they think the doctrine was wrong in general. However, that doctrine is the current state of the law, and what this case, and the appeal, will be analyzed under."
This is exactly what happened. From the decision:
I think, sadly, there is a good chance the supreme court will change horizontal price fixing to be under the rule of reason, and then we will finally all be screwed (The rule of reason analysis is why you see so much vertical price fixing these days, since it is no longer a per-se violation)Note that the judge, being prescient, also wrote part of the decision to explain why she believes Apple would also be guilty under the rule of reason (IE if it was not a per-se violation). This portion of the decision takes into account Amazon's conduct.
This was done so that if the supreme court declares horizontal price fixing to be subject to the rule of reason, they won't need a new trial.